So where's the next 'great leap forward' in commercial aviation technology?

I’d settle for technology which means ATC delays are abolished & delivers palatable food in economy class. 😀

Also technology which cancels out the effect of air-turbulence would be good.

🙂

What about more efficient passenger ground structure?

As I see it today’s structure have more to do with an air of importance the air traveling industry likes to surround itself (like it were still 1935) and commercial opportunities in airports (shops, cafes, etc) than optimisation of the system.

I think with sensors for security checks getting smaller and cheaper the passenger side of airports could be much more parallelized, since with the use of RFIDs and Internet check-ins what remains is the question of the baggage.

And instead of a big centralised structure with poor load-balancing capability a cellular arrangement of the arrival/departure system might be a better option. No airgates, just a lot of smaller lifting-cabin busses.

While JL is true the idea didnt get much interest with the airlines for many reasons . Moreoever in places like India Railways is going to rule the roost for decades to come , It is cheap , has a huge network (i think the largest in the world) and has a large market captured. While JL may be true for some fare classes it isnt universal . Having been to many parts of india for work i can tell you that allready some routes are very competitve if compared to Railways First class even with the 320’s , 737’s and RJ’s however when you go down to the 2nd class and lower on railways where an overewhelming majority of the passengers travel you cannot compete . Also it would be imposible to substititute much of the rail network , The Indian railways carries close to 14 million passengers daily .

In europe definately but i dont see it happening here in the US or in some of the developing asian countries.

I actually think that aircraft may take over on other connections from railway, as useful railway connections demand large investments. Countries like India and China, who are large in size and population, at the same time with limited infrastructure, will rely more on air travel. Or as John Leahy once stated, the A380 in dense configuration has lower operating costs than the Indian railway on some routes.
With aircraft technology advancing, the benefit of railway in terms of overall environmental impact decreases.

Would be very interesting to see FRA , LHR etc 10 years from now and compare the avg. size of aircraft taking off and landing there

Interesting point….Since I’ve been working at LHR, March 1999, I’d guess that the average size (or I guess the average pax capacity per a/c would be more accurate) has decreased. Back in 99, BA LHR short haul was mainly B752 and B763, with ten A320s. Now the vast majority of it is A319/320.

More point to point or reliance on hub’n spoke.

I think it would be a mix however the dime will shift towards Point to Point for sure . Most of the Mid sized Widebodies being ordered ( hundereds of A330’s , 777’s , 787’s , 350’s) greatly outnumber by an unimaginable factor the no. of VLA’s being ordered . Having said that Hub n spoke will work for a lot of airlines, routes etc . It Would be very interesting to see FRA , LHR etc 10 years from now and compare the avg. size of aircraft taking off and landing there . Moreover Small Hubs will become bigger and would naturally put some Ramp/Slot pressure so going forward somewhere down the line the Middle or Small-Middle ports will become Big players particularly in asian countries. I think that eventually the PAX would rather go point to point and as a result the airlines will forever look to provide Cheap P2P as possible , and with a clear interest of OEM’s (both boeing and airbus) to provide Cheap P2P aircrafts they will get what they want . Also 10 years down the Line the A380 Might be a good P2P aircraft , LHR-JFK is pretty darn Point to Point if you ask me 🙂 .

Here in Germany for example the train is for some city pairs (f. e. Hamburg to Frankfurt) the fastest mode of travel from downtown to downtown.

I often envy the european Rail infrastructure .

Potentially short haul traffic will go back to the rail with improved infrastructure and increased fuel cost.

In europe definately but i dont see it happening here in the US or in some of the developing asian countries.

Another thing I would bet on: The aircraft in 20 years or in 30 years will still have a pilot, most likely two.

Well well with MOL dominating the industry i bet there would be attempts to make pilotless cockpits !! Damn those White shirted ******s , who take all my money and cant even buy their own stationary 😀

Also in 20 years we will see –

– Every third Widebody aircraft would be painted in Emirates Livery
– Every second flight would be scheduled from DXB

I agree , 0.85 avg. seems to be the sweet spot for the forceable future (atleast our lifetime anyway) .

IMHO what we will see now is as the world economy grows –

– Shift to better interiors , more legroom etc etc
– Greener – maybe even alternate synth fuel
– Better ATC managment

Agree. With more traffic between large urban centers it will be interesting how the airlines will organize the traffic. More point to point or reliance on hub’n spoke. I guess a mixture of both. Potentially short haul traffic will go back to the rail with improved infrastructure and increased fuel cost. Here in Germany for example the train is for some city pairs (f. e. Hamburg to Frankfurt) the fastest mode of travel from downtown to downtown.

I would see a limited chance that for short haul traffic (<500nm) the turbo-prop will have a comeback, potentially based on more sophisticated prop aircraft (see A400M with M0.68 cruise speed, compared to M0.78 of a normal single aisle).

I see no alternate fuels as their overal carbon footprint is sometimes quite bad and the price is still beyond affordability. The usage of alternate fuels is to some extent bull****ting the public by now. Lufthansa would need agricultaral area equal to ~8% of Germany to grow fuel for its operations.

Another thing I would bet on: The aircraft in 20 years or in 30 years will still have a pilot, most likely two.

And another thing: there are no big leaps any more, just careful evolution, especially when considered from the distance.

People, especially layman, see Super Conni, B707 and Concorde and conclude that speed increases with time and that is the nature of progress. That is wrong.

“Progress” costs money and must be economically reasonable, otherwise it is not asked for and nobody would invest in such technologies. When we look at speed, we can use the Concorde as good example for some basic conclusions. Concorde had a ~120% higher cruise speed than the B707, still the travel time between Heathrow Terminal door and JFK terminal door was reduced by at best 30%, potentially less.

The progress we have seen in the last 10 to 20 years is a reduction of fatal accidents with FAR25 aircraft to one tenth of the rate we had two decades ago. We have also seen a drop in relative ticket price (relative to income). These are the vectors of “progress”, more affordable or more comfortable, safer (and more reliable), “greener”. Not a knot more speed in sight, though. A380 and B787 have queitly settled were last time the B747 was, at about M.85 to M.89 cruise speed. B767 and A300 were down to M.8 in the mean time.

I agree , 0.85 avg. seems to be the sweet spot for the forceable future (atleast our lifetime anyway) .

IMHO what we will see now is as the world economy grows –

– Shift to better interiors , more legroom etc etc
– Greener – maybe even alternate synth fuel
– Better ATC managment

To answer the primary question:
Speed.
As airports (and the drives to them) take more of a travellers time, there will be more pressure to regain some of the lost time by making planes faster. The trick will be to do that without losing much fuel efficency or causing extra pollution.

Why don’t change the airports? The current system actually focusses on pooling the passengers ahead of boarding to prevent any delays. I see no reason why check-in and boarding cannot be accomplished in 30 to maximum 45 minutes.

So do you suggest that we will go straight from here to “Beem me up scotty” ? 😀

People, especially layman, see Super Conni, B707 and Concorde and conclude that speed increases with time and that is the nature of progress. That is wrong.

“Progress” costs money and must be economically reasonable, otherwise it is not asked for and nobody would invest in such technologies. When we look at speed, we can use the Concorde as good example for some basic conclusions. Concorde had a ~120% higher cruise speed than the B707, still the travel time between Heathrow Terminal door and JFK terminal door was reduced by at best 30%, potentially less.

The progress we have seen in the last 10 to 20 years is a reduction of fatal accidents with FAR25 aircraft to one tenth of the rate we had two decades ago. We have also seen a drop in relative ticket price (relative to income). These are the vectors of “progress”, more affordable or more comfortable, safer (and more reliable), “greener”. Not a knot more speed in sight, though. A380 and B787 have queitly settled were last time the B747 was, at about M.85 to M.89 cruise speed. B767 and A300 were down to M.8 in the mean time.

So do you suggest that we will go straight from here to “Beem me up scotty” ? 😀

To answer the primary question:
Speed.
As airports (and the drives to them) take more of a travellers time, there will be more pressure to regain some of the lost time by making planes faster. The trick will be to do that without losing much fuel efficency or causing extra pollution.

Speed will most likely not increase. Transonic drag rise is a physical fact, going beyond Mach 1 requires too much compromise. The current speed is fast enough, average speed on a highway hasn’t increased since 1960, either. We will see as Distiller stated new guidance and more efficient planning. Aircraft will become lighter. If A380 become successful we will maybe see a blended-wing body concept by 2025, but as Boeing gives the A380 no success I doubt.

Generally there are no big visible leaps in technology in sight. Aviation has just reached the limits set by physics, as other transportation methods.

As for fuel efficiency how about nuclear energy replacing kerosene, as the technology matures it will become possible for better miniaturisation, small enough to fit in an aircraft…

No, not even thinkable.

Well for me transportatiuonal technology hasent been moving fast enough since the operations of the combustion engine. :rolleyes:

Climate now will be the premiere drive for technological advancements. Till now whatever aircrafts have taken to the air have the combustion engine as there bread and butter while more technological advancements have been made in passenger comforts and passenger communications. Although good advancement but nothing on the scale that could revolutionise transportation once again.

First, I’m not a Republican! :rolleyes:
Please don’t assume my political leanings…I’m very liberal on some issues, somewhat less so on others.:diablo:

Fair comment. I don’t fit neatly into any political “pigeon-hole” myself, so I should know better than to assume that others do. 😎

Secondly…if you read my post you’ll see I was talking about why the the US SST was cancelled with jealousy not being a reason….
market forces did not kill off the U.S. SST program, because it never got that far.
It was killed, in very large part by the “environmental lobby” to which the majority liberals (and the Democrats were a majority..look it up..I mentioned it as an observation, not a political comment:D ) were sensitive to…AND the huge costs. (Now you can agrue that the Congress killed it because they thought it would fail in the market place…but technically, that’s not market forces at work). Period media reports focus almost entirely on the environmental and cost aspects of the program.

I agree, market forces (unit costs, fuel, operating expenses) killed the Concorde…and probably would have killed the Boeing IF it had been built.

Agreed, but what if the economic climate had favoured mass travel by SST?

Do you really consider that these environmental and political considerations would have held Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas (and yes, Lockheed too) back from producing SSTs while airlines around the world ordered and operated the Concorde and the Tu144D?

No, neither do I. 😀

Politics, politics! Always with the parochial US politics! :rolleyes:
You, of all people, should recognise that you can’t defy market forces.

First, I’m not a Republican! :rolleyes:
Please don’t assume my political leanings…I’m very liberal on some issues, somewhat less so on others.:diablo:

Secondly…if you read my post you’ll see I was talking about why the the US SST was cancelled with jealousy not being a reason….
market forces did not kill off the U.S. SST program, because it never got that far.
It was killed, in very large part by the “environmental lobby” to which the majority liberals (and the Democrats were a majority..look it up..I mentioned it as an observation, not a political comment:D ) were sensitive to…AND the huge costs. (Now you can agrue that the Congress killed it because they thought it would fail in the market place…but technically, that’s not market forces at work). Period media reports focus almost entirely on the environmental and cost aspects of the program.

I agree, market forces (unit costs, fuel, operating expenses) killed the Concorde…and probably would have killed the Boeing IF it had been built.

And that was that apart, of course, from the Concorde/Tu144 “vanity services” operated at an overall loss by Air France, British Airways and Aeroflot.

I’m not sure that the Tu-144 operating at a loss could be considered a negative aspect of the program. It did operate in the Soviet Union, who had distinctly different financial theories and practices than the West (which, of course, eventually caught up to them!) 😀

In reality Aeroflot, who had wanted to use the fleet to fly athletes and people around in conjunction with the 1980 Olympics, for example, simply got sick and tired of waiting for the jet to mature. The prototype was an unrefined design that pretty much let them claim the first SST flight, and the standard model (damn near completely redesigned) lacked the range required by Aeroflot (and showed a distinct lack of understanding of the concept of internal noise reduction). Two crashes didn’t help the program either, and so by the time the Tu-144D was ready the program was dead in the water.

Gas did impact both Concorde and the CHARGER…in Concorde rising costs ensured it’d never be more than a niche platform, and in CHARGER poor fuel economy in the NK-144 engines ensured that more refinement was needed (mainly in the form of new RD-36-51A engines) resulting in further delays that irritated and eventually alienated Aeroflot.

Waits patiently for proof of the ‘erroneous’ nature of her opinions…

Grey Area answered part of it.

To continue, the failure of the Tu-144 also impacted the Concorde program. There were plans for reciprocal routes, with Concorde flying across the former USSR to reach places like the Far East. With the Tu-144 having its own issues and not lasting long enough to benefit from the Tu-144D’s appearance, the reciprocal routes concept went away.

There was also the anti-noise lobby in the US that tried to keep Concorde out of American airspace for a bit, but how that had to do with US jealousy I have no idea. Route planning and a few demonstrations eventually satiated that crowd and allowed the Concorde to have access to American airports.

In reality it was the massive upsurge in oil prices that did the most to kill the Concorde as a widely used aircraft. You couldn’t make it anywhere near profitable without filling it with 100 first-class passengers, and that wasn’t going to appeal to the mass-market crowd.

So, where does American jealousy fit into this, especially when you consider that the American SST, being a large-capacity aircraft with at least 300 seats, would have arguably been the better aircraft had it not been cancelled for many of the same reasons that curtailed the Concorde?

No, the Boeing SST was the first victim of the ecology movement…it corresponded with the start of “Earth Day”, and happened along in a time of liberal domination of the US congress.

Politics, politics! Always with the parochial US politics! :rolleyes:

You, of all people, should recognise that you can’t defy market forces. Events far beyond the control of any aircraft manufacturer (or Western politician for that matter – yes, even your beloved US Republicans) rendered supersonic air travel too expensive for the burgeoning mass air travel market of the early 1970s.

Accordingly, the global airline industry rapidly came to regard all SSTs as undesirable white elephants and voted with their feet, as it were.

And that was that apart, of course, from the Concorde/Tu144 “vanity services” operated at an overall loss by Air France, British Airways and Aeroflot.

When money talks politics doesn’t get a word in edgeways, mate! 😉

We’ve tried ‘fast’ (strangled at birth by U.S. jealousy)…

Nonsense. Where do you get this BS?
If the Concirde made economic sense, other, non-US. airlines would have bought it. Qantas, South Africa, Singapore, among others, all had the need for a fast aircraft that doesn’t have to fly anywhere near the U.S.

No, the Boeing SST was the first victim of the ecology movement…it corresponded with the start of “Earth Day”, and happened along in a time of liberal domination of the US congress.

To answer the primary question:
Speed.
As airports (and the drives to them) take more of a travellers time, there will be more pressure to regain some of the lost time by making planes faster. The trick will be to do that without losing much fuel efficency or causing extra pollution.